Talk:Retrospective diagnosis

Caligula

What do we now know, (or speculate??) about him? Graham Colm ^Talk 20:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Suetonius claimed he had the "falling sickness" as a youth, which is interpreted by historians as epilepsy. But there are really no more details than those two words and we have to question whether Suetonius is a reliable historian on this matter. We know the physicians of the time had a very primitive understanding of epilepsy and related disorders. Perhaps the boy just fainted a few times? One unrestrained retrospective diagnosis takes these few slender "facts" and diagnoses "grand mal seizures", "minor tonic seizures", "psycho-motor disturbances" and then uses the old chestnut of Geschwind syndrome to diagnose "temporal lobe epilepsy" based on his personality (I kid you not). Colin°^Talk 21:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to lead and creation of multiple sections

This change, though well intentioned, gutted the lead paragraph and left a weak ("diagnosis of something after the fact") and unsourced definition. The only dictionary definition of the term that I have found, involves the use of the term by (medical) historians. Searching PubMed highlights individual papers where the authors have used that phrase to describe a practice in clinical pathology. The examples given in that edit (of chest pathology) are sourced to documents 140 years old, and can't really be used as examples of modern terminology. The use of the phrase in that circumstance makes sense but is it common?

The creation of multiple sections in such a short article seems premature. The main focus of the article is the widespread use of the terms retrospective or posthumous diagnosis by (medical) historians. As a practice worthy of discussion, I have only found comment wrt the historical use. Since the use of the term by pathologists seems to be valid but undiscussed in the literature, I've moved that paragraph to the end of the body text. I'd like to see the examples list brought into the body text in some way, as I don't want the article to become a list of everyone's favourite (or detested) retrospective diagnosis. Colin°^Talk 09:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I spent hours gathering reliable sources, expanding the article, and preparing a framework to incorporate that list, only to have most of my contribution discarded. I see I am wasting my time here. --Una Smith (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. (see the bottom of the edit window)

I too have spent a long time on this article and found it this morning with the lead gutted and a weak WP:OR definition replacing the sourced one. The split into sections placed far too much emphasis on the medical "usage" of the term, which appears to be slight. I can't comment on your "framework to incorporate that list" but I'd welcome some attempt to produce a well-sourced prose paragraph that replaces the list.

As for last nights's edits, they added two sources, a few sentences, and a reorganisation of the paragraphs into sections. Those two sources were, I commented above, 140 years old! One was a homeopathic textbook (hardly mainstream) and the other a collection of lectures. In order to progress beyond "a couple of people used this phrase to mean X 140 year ago" we need a modern source that discusses the practice of "retrospective diagnosis" as a clinical medical procedure. Colin°^Talk 15:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Another commentary

• Leven KH (2004). ""At times these ancient facts seem to lie before me like a patient on a hospital bed'—retrospective diagnosis and ancient medical history". Stud Anc Med. 27: 369–86. PMID 17152180.

Sounds like a relevant commentary on the practice, but I don't have access to it. Colin°^Talk 09:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed from T:TDYK

This discussion has been moved here from its DYK nomination

• ... that retrospective diagnosis, the diagnosis of possible medical conditions on historical figures from historical sources, is regarded by some medical historians as "a game with ill-defined rules and little academic credibility"? Created today by Colin (talk · contribs). JFW | T@lk 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Alternative hook: "... that several historic figures, from Samuel Johnson to George III, have been retrospectively diagnosed with diseases unknown during their lifetimes?" JFW | T@lk 06:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

- I have made the relevant ref online; and Peter Elmer does say this.. is this "some medical historians" - can you tweak it? By the way - very timely article. This ref could be added as an alternate view to some articles as it puts speculation into perspective. Victuallers (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume your issue is (correctly) with the plural where we only cite and quote one author. Another issue is that Elmer reserves that particular criticism for "socially and culturally constructed diseases". While IMO many retrospective diagnoses are bollocks, there are a number of respectable examples that have enlightened us about the people or the disease. Perhaps the article needs a little balance tweaking. I'll have a think about another hook, unless JFW has more ideas. Colin°^Talk 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• How about: "... that in 2003 Franklin D. Roosevelt was retrospectively diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome, replacing the historical diagnosis of poliomyelitis as the cause of his paralytic illness?" Colin°^Talk 20:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Original hook, at 228 characters, is too long. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the process. Do we edit the original hook or can you pick e.g. the alternative one about Roosevelt? Colin°^Talk 09:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Either. If you prefer the Roosevelt alternative, then making the original version more eligible may be unnecessary. User:Art LaPella/Long hook may be helpful. Art LaPella (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please use the one about Roosevelt, above. It doesn't have any text--sourcing problems, has an online reference, is short enough, captures the essence of what a retrospective diagnosis is about, and contains fact that may surprise readers. Colin°^Talk 22:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Except the hook is inaccurate. 2003 refers to the year an article was published that analyses the two favorite diagnoses of FDR's paralysis, but the second diagnosis predates that article. Also, the article about this particular retrospective diagnosis (Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness) does not qualify for DYK, being too old. I think it is unfortunate that DYK requires the article to be newly created/expanded; those are very artificial conditions. Also, in my opinion this push for DYK is contributing to an unfortunate POV bias in Retrospective diagnosis, to make its topic appear more novel and sensational than it is. --Una Smith (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The hook isn't inaccurate. The source:

• Goldman AS, Schmalstieg EJ, Freeman DH, Goldman DA, Schmalstieg FC (2003). "What was the cause of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's paralytic illness?" (PDF). J Med Biogr. 11 (4): 232–40. PMID 14562158. Retrieved 2008-09-12.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Is original research into the possibility that FDR had GBS rather than Polio. I'm not aware of any such "diagnosis [which] predates that article". The (Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness) article isn't being nominated for DYK (it isn't in bold) so its age is irrelevant. I have no idea about the "bias" Una perceives, but discussion of that belongs in the relevant talk page, not here. Colin°^Talk 17:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The hook ("... that in 2003 Franklin D. Roosevelt was retrospectively diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome, replacing the historical diagnosis of poliomyelitis as the cause of his paralytic illness?") is inaccurate, for several reasons. Reason number 1: the article examines the probabilities of two alternative, hypothetical diagnoses. The article neither proves the "new" diagnosis (which was not original to that cited article) nor disproves the "old" diagnosis, and certainly does not replace one with the other. The article has no new data about FDR; instead it considers how well FDR's reported symptoms match symptoms in certain populations, and a diagnosis on those grounds alone would be incompetent. The authors of the 2003 article understand that, and identify some data about FDR that, if reported, would permit a differential diagnosis. Reason number 2: as written, the hook concerns not the facts of the 2003 article but rather an unwarranted extrapolation from those facts. The hook is biased, not neutral. Retrospective diagnosis also is biased, not neutral, but that is to be expected in a brand new article with input from few editors. My meta-concern here is how the "rules" of DYK encourage ownership, haste, and other vices. --Una Smith (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you reading the same article as me? The one that ends "Poliomyelitis cannot be ruled out but retrospective analysis favours the diagnosis of GBS". Even standard clinical diagnosis can involve the weighing up of probabilities. Look at the diagnostic criteria for tuberous sclerosis for example. Science cannot prove a theory, nor does one need to disprove an old one for it to be considered less attractive. The hook doesn't state that everyone now accepts this retrospective diagnosis, merely that it was performed and came to a conclusion that replaces the incumbent diagnosis. Of course the article contains no new data on FDR; that is common with retrospective diagnosis -- they work with historical records. There has been no extrapolation from the facts.

Would Una please highlight (preferably on the article talk page) any perceived bias in the article. The only bias I can see is the lack of commentary in support of the sometimes excellent historical retrospective diagnoses that have enlightened us, and that is because I haven't found sources for that yet. Unlike Una, I'm not prepared to inject my own opinion into the article without backup. The other aspect of RD that Una is trying to emphasize is the supposed use of the term in clinical diagnosis. This may well be true but the "evidence" Una is found is extremely weak and 140 years old. Just because Google Books finds those two words strung together in ancient manuscripts does not make it a defined term of widespread use and common meaning! Your comments on ownership and vice are unwelcome and rude and suggest sour grapes on your part. Colin°^Talk 09:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• How about: "... that retrospective diagnosis, a sport of biographers and historians, has a distinguished origin in medicine?" To support that hook, some of my own contributions deleted from the article would have to be restored. --Una Smith (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is utter WP:OR and totally biased. It is not always "a sport"; it is sometimes a scholarly process like any other historical or medical examination of the facts. And to say it has a "distinguished origin" is far grander than sources allow. The practice of analysing historical documents to retrospectively diagnose a person is 100% unlike the practice of examining a patient or a specimen. Sorry, Una, but DKY needs sourced contributions. Colin°^Talk 09:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose we delete this DYK nomination and move the entire discussion here to Talk:Retrospective diagnosis. --Una Smith (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear. I struck through the original and first alternative hooks because it looked like reviewers were still looking at them (the "too long" comment) and ignoring the option of an alternative. Perhaps strikethrough isn't done at DYK. I only offered an alternative because the original was queried by the first reviewer, and I couldn't figure out how to rewrite it, using that quote, and remain accurate. I thought the FDR hook was interesting and a good example of retrospective diagnosis. Plus the paper is free online. Oh well. Colin°^Talk 17:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Distinguished origin

We don't yet have any sources that suggest "retrospective diagnosis", as a clinical practice, is a commonly used phrase, let alone that it is "distinguished". The hook above suggests that the "sport" of retrospective diagnosis has an origin in clinical practice, which also isn't supported by any sources. Lastly, the hook suggest that the biographical and historian usage comes after the supposed medical usage. This is very unlikely. Historians have speculated about the medical conditions of great figures since antiquity. We mustn't forget that much so-called "historical record" is not contemporary but has been written down many years after the event. We can't be sure those ancient historians haven't indulged in a little retrospective diagnosis when they confidently state so-and-so had such-and-such. It has even been used as slander: such as when Byzantine Christian historian Theophanes claimed Muhammad had epilepsy. Really, retrospective diagnosis is as old as the hills. Colin°^Talk 09:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Colin, I offered an alternative DYK hook merely to help you out. Your original objection to it was sufficient to kill it. --Una Smith (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine

A discussion leading to creation of this page is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Posthumous diagnosis. --Una Smith (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What is "retrospective diagnosis"?

The 2003 article discussed above, a Bayesian analysis of FDR's paralysis, nowhere uses the phrase "retrospective diagnosis". I provided two sources that not only use the phrase "retrospective diagnosis" but use it as a heading.[1][2] In both of those sources, the phrase refers to examining the patient. Colin says "The practice of analysing historical documents to retrospectively diagnose a person is 100% unlike the practice of examining a patient or a specimen."[3] If what Colin says is false, this is a case of blind men and an elephant. If what Colin says is true, then it points to the need for disambiguation. Either way, Google Books provides easy access to many sources, both old and new: the phrase "retrospective diagnosis" occurs in 281 full text books there. --Una Smith (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the 2003 article uses the phrases "retrospective analytical technique" and "retrospective analysis", but they are not synonyms for "retrospective diagnosis". Rather, they refer to Bayesian inference. In other words, they refer to the statistical tool, not to its application. --Una Smith (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This article cites MedTerms for a definition of "retrospective diagnosis". This definition is confirmed by its widespread use, a few examples of which are cited. The problem I have with the "examining the patient" "definition" is that Una has found some sources (old ones at that) where the words are used in that sense, and has inferred that this must be a proper medical term.

To show that this is not a logical step, search Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, PubMed for "tricky diagnosis". Now tell me: should Wikipedia have an article tricky diagnosis with our home-grown definition: a diagnosis that is harder than normal? This is the mistake that Una has made and why I undid some of the edits made to this article.

Clearly the words "retrospective diagnosis" are used in the medical field, outside of historical or biographical reviews. The meaning can be understood if one understands the words "retrospective" and "diagnosis". Combining them into a "medical term" implies a level of importance that I'm not sure the sources support. Perhaps if there is a book or chapter teaching "retrospective diagnosis", or discussing the subject as a medical procedure then we can be sure.

Like Una, I have searched for the words and I am reasonably confident that in the field of clinical pathology, the phrase is not uncommon. In keeping with WP:PRIMARY, I've only made a descriptive claim: "The term retrospective diagnosis is also sometimes used by...". Saying much more about this usage would probably fall foul of WP:WEIGHT. I have not found enough modern sources to support mentioning the use of that phrase as a diagnostic technique in patients. I'm sure it is used occasionally. But at this stage, mentioning that usage is less well supported than "tricky diagnosis".

If we can find a source defining alternative meanings for "retrospective diagnosis" then they can be elevated to 1st class alternatives. Disambiguation is only really necessary if we have multiple articles.

The FDR article was an exercise in retrospective diagnosis, meeting the dictionary and commonly accepted meaning of the term. It doesn't matter much that the article doesn't use that phrase. It was also a "multi-author article appearing in a medical journal" but you won't find that phrase in the text. Colin°^Talk 08:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Cow Release program

Making conversation with the other side of the road. 2603:8080:3800:627:412:35AF:6305:8D3F (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

why is there a section on autism specifically?

i think it's just a little odd that there's a whole section dedicated to retrospectively diagnosing autism, but for no other conditions. why not a section about people retrospectively diagnosing tuberculosis and using Chopin as the prototype?

just wondering why retrospectively diagnosing autism is being singled out like it is. for the record, a lot of autistic people i know (aka my friends) including myself do actually retrospectively diagnose people with autism rather frequently. we see ourselves connected in with the behaviors and patterns and struggles and thoughts and creativity of those historical figures we relate with.

im sure allistic (non-autistic) people do it too with their various quirks and things...

apologies for the rambling comment, what im trying to get at is: should autism be singled out for a whole section on retrospective diagnosis or should that section maybe be better merged into "Examples"? 2600:6C47:A03F:C443:1409:5DA3:7A24:A0C4 (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

okay, looking more at the autism section, it's actually written pretty insensitively and reads in my autistic mind like by someone who views autistic people as "autism" than as people, like we actually are.

the way the section reads like it's some kind of hot debate on whether cavendish "exhibits classical signs of autism" and commentary on detractors of "now everyone has Asperger's these days!" this doesn't really fit the tone of the remainder of the article, doesn't really provide any information beyond something that could be stuffed into a line "Was Henry Cavendish autistic?" with the accompanying Sacks reference and it would fit in just fine.

it's not insensitive to look back and think "oh hey that person might have had X disorder cuz they exhibited Y signs that are typically associated with X" this whole article is already about the uncertainty and "scientific invalidity" or whatever of making a reteospective diagnosis

looking back at people through the lens of opening awareness and acceptance is a good thing actually 2600:6C47:A03F:C443:1409:5DA3:7A24:A0C4 (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

reading more about wikipedia talk page guidelines, here i forgot my signature

2600:6C47:A03F:C443:1409:5DA3:7A24:A0C4 (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

bible characters

im glad that abraham, moses, jesus, etc are asked about whether they had psychotic disorders. as someone with a psychotic disorder, i think the parallels are super striking 2600:6C47:A03F:C443:1409:5DA3:7A24:A0C4 (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

article reads kinda harsh

many parts of this article read like a harsh mockery of people wanting to look back at history through the lens of increasing scientific knowledge, education, awareness, and acceptance of those in our society with differences and disorders.

there is *substantially* more scientific validity to retrospective diagnosis than there is to something like, say, habitability of planets outside the solar system, but the (lovely written) wikipedia articles on speculative exoplanet habitability are actually written like, positively? from an actual perspective of people who talk about the potentials of things like it's an actual reality? even if there's a section very clearly detailing "okay this is EXTREMELY speculative" whats wrong about speculating on history about potential disorders/conditions that people might have had?

feels like rhis this article treating this topic with bad faith? idk. 2600:6C47:A03F:C443:1409:5DA3:7A24:A0C4 (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)